Apple is just trying to control everything...just like Apple likes to do. Here is the down side as stated in the article "several European carriers threatened Apple that such a feature would jeopardize their willingness to subsidize future versions of the iPhone." You will save a few pennies on your phone bill but get ready to pay $500 - $700 for that new phone.
Way to take things out of context.
Quote:
Here is the down side as stated in the article "several European carriers threatened Apple that such a feature would jeopardize their willingness to subsidize future versions of the iPhone."
The feature you seem to be talking about is something different. Apple wanted to work on an embedded SIM chip, which would do away with the requirement for customers to obtain a carrier-specific SIM. Not wanting to be even more marginalized, European carriers killed the project by threatening to cancel subsidies on the iPhone.
Quote:
Apple is just trying to control everything...just like Apple likes to do.
I've heard this too many times to count. I'm willing to be money that if anyone besides Apple were to do this, that company would be lauded as watching out for customers, protecting them from those "big bad carriers." If Apple does it, however, they're just trying to control everything...but I digress.
Apple is maintaining control of the platform, and not allowing carriers to have any control of the platform. As I see it, that does not hinder carriers in any way. Their job is to provide the functionality of making calls and using the web. Carriers' lack of control does not hinder that at all. Also, it's a tradeoff system. For example, take the AT&T exclusivity deal. AT&T ceded control of the platform to Apple, but in exchange, AT&T did not have to handle any aspects related to handset itself, such as advertising and dealing with technical support/warranties. Apple handled all of those things, and at the same time, AT&T charged the same amount of money for monthly plans that it charged for other devices.
For this to happen, it would require co-operation from the carriers.
And because it could cause a sea change in the way they do business, I don't see them falling over themselves to offer this option.
If Apple creates an MVNO, then the carriers would have less to say about the issue. I had mentioned just the other day that Apple spending some of that cash heap to create an MVNO is a possibility. This looks like it could be a real likelihood. I would not be surprised to see Apple acquire an existing MVNO or two.
The carriers may not need to be that involved. If Apple has an MVNO in place they could probably route calls on the most cost-effective basis based on static information (i.e., using the least-cost option depending on where you are currently located). In time. Apple would need a way to poll this information from the carriers more dynamically.
The downside is that once Apple moves in this direction, carriers will understandably be unlikely to subsidize the iPhone. This might not be so bad in the US which has an abundance of retail outlets carrying the phone (plus possibly adding any acquired MVNO stores). But, it would signal to countless other carriers around the world what Apple's intentions are and cause them to either drop or stop subsidizing the iPhone.
Will be interesting to see if anything comes of this.
I think that under this model the subsidization (is that even a word!?) would come from Apple instead of the wireless provider(s). Or perhaps this would end subsidies all together and we'd end up with $300-$400 iPhones and lower monthly bills. I'd be okay with this path as long as the savings were realized in the first 6-12 months.
The carriers who don't have a knee-jerk reaction would still see the benefits of subsidizing the iPhone. That two-year contract the customer signs more than pays the cost of the phone and the carrier makes a tidy profit.
I have to wonder about the 'patent' here. SJ told us the iPhone and iOS was patented pretty well. If so, something went wrong there it seems to me, else Google are in for a nasty shock one day.
Don't forget that Apple has gone after a couple of Android carriers: HTC and Motorola (in a defensive maneuver).
Say this takes off. Who controls your phone #? We need to let end users have control of their phone numbers else it will be used as a wedge by carriers against competitive services.
In order for this to work, Apple most likely needs to become an MVNO - they will control your number.
Say this takes off. Who controls your phone #? We need to let end users have control of their phone numbers else it will be used as a wedge by carriers against competitive services.
You want my best guess ? Apple will (or anyone apple might license the patent to might provide the same service).
If this actually happens, it would commoditize the tower operators / license holders. Not a bad idea in my book.
Just to clear the air a little bit, some of what this portends is already happening.
Take AT&T (please !) ... I don't know how AT&T Wireless operates internally (financially speaking), but I'd bet that there are two operating segments. One operated the towers/licenses and one operates retail/consumer/biz accounts. The former is the one that wholesales minutes to all GSM retailers (MVNO, AT&T wireless retail, etc). The latter handles customer billing, dispenses handsets, and customer service. Guess which one would effectively get neutered by this kind of paradigm.
You want my best guess ? Apple will (or anyone apple might license the patent to might provide the same service).
If this actually happens, it would commoditize the tower operators / license holders. Not a bad idea in my book.
No, if this happens it will drive up the retail price of the iPhone AND drive up the cost of airtime and data.
How many cell providers worldwide provide short term, low volume, ala carte services for LESS than long term bundled services? None. If you sign up for more minutes or more data, the cost per minute and cost per mb goes down. If you sign up for 2 years instead of month to month, the price goes down. If Apple gets their way and we buy by the minute without even a monthly contract you think it is going to be CHEAPER? Ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! I have a bridge to sell anyone who believes that!!!!!!!
And that is before we pay through the iTunes store. If there is a 30% Apple Tax to buy your minutes through Apple, you can be sure Apple owners will be charged 30% more by the carriers than people who get their airtime directly from the carrier.
There is no way this will increase competition, especially in the US. If I go to AT&T and Verizon now looking for a new iPhone on 2 year contract, whoever wins my business will get about $100 a month for 24 months, or $2400 in revenue, plus a big edge in getting me to resign for the next two years, plus the extra pull for my friends and familly from having me on their network. Under the Apple model, if I am asking them to bid on a 5 minute call to my cousin Fred at 3:00 PM, the winner will get something like $0.50 one time. There is a MUCH MUCH bigger incentive to compete now than there will be uner the Apple system.
This will never happen because it would require the networks cooperation. Whos to say that apple knows better than you, what the cheapest rate is? This wouldn't take into consideration all the permutations with phone plans that take place. These companies could bid one price to apple and then advertise, hey if you get the plan from us it'll be cheaper. Telcos depend on steady cash flow like any other business and would never willingly go to a on demand bid model, it would completely remove any leverage they have with pricing plans.
Except that loans *END*. Why is it that after my cell contract is done my bill (which should be just for service at that point) does not go down?
-Mike
...umm, because you don't ask to change to a lower plan that may suit your needs better, once you are out of contract and your plan is rolling month to month.
Apple is just trying to control everything...just like Apple likes to do. Here is the down side as stated in the article "several European carriers threatened Apple that such a feature would jeopardize their willingness to subsidize future versions of the iPhone." You will save a few pennies on your phone bill but get ready to pay $500 - $700 for that new phone.
Well this is a no-brainer and you can't criticize Apple or any company on this topic.
Of course if you are getting the lowest price on calls no carrier will subsidize your phone and no company will give you a free phone. You can't have both low cost per call and a subsidized phone.
In this model you would have to pay full cost for the phone to get the lower call rates. Over the life of the phone this method would save consumers money. All companies exist to make money, to think you should be able get both low call rates and a subsidized phone you would have to be a moron.
This whole idea goes along the lines of the old saying: You can pay me now or you can pay me later. Rest assured nothing in this world is free and you will pay or you will go without. The only choice you will ever have is deciding which method of payment works best for you.
Say this takes off. Who controls your phone #? We need to let end users have control of their phone numbers else it will be used as a wedge by carriers against competitive services.
The consumer already controls their phone number. Once you have a phone number you can get it ported to whatever phone you own. It is the law, it may cost you a nominal fee to get the number transferred / ported over but you can keep the same phone number.
No, if this happens it will drive up the retail price of the iPhone AND drive up the cost of airtime and data.
How many cell providers worldwide provide short term, low volume, ala carte services for LESS than long term bundled services? None. If you sign up for more minutes or more data, the cost per minute and cost per mb goes down. If you sign up for 2 years instead of month to month, the price goes down. If Apple gets their way and we buy by the minute without even a monthly contract you think it is going to be CHEAPER? Ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! I have a bridge to sell anyone who believes that!!!!!!!
You are kind of missing the whole issue of Apple becoming an MVNO (like Virgin, Boost, Tracfone). These companies buy huge blocks of minutes from the Verizon and Sprint at a discount and then resell them at a profit but below the telcos prices. Apple could do the same even offering to subsidize the iPhone for a two-year contract. Apple could easily enter this field by buying up a few MVNOs.
What would be new is the concept of least-cost routing. But even that is old news as that was a standard offering for companies that specialized in the business long-distance market before nationwide long-distance was available. Apple could take advantage of this by offering a fixed dollar value (rather than minutes) for your subscription and then always route through the lowest-cost alternative. Any usage above the allotted dollar plan would likely see additional minutes at substantially lower prices billed to your iTunes account.
I don't think this will necessarily be about ala carte services. I think Apple will be an MVNO that offers least-cost routing.
This will never happen because it would require the networks cooperation. Whos to say that apple knows better than you, what the cheapest rate is? This wouldn't take into consideration all the permutations with phone plans that take place. These companies could bid one price to apple and then advertise, hey if you get the plan from us it'll be cheaper. Telcos depend on steady cash flow like any other business and would never willingly go to a on demand bid model, it would completely remove any leverage they have with pricing plans.
Apple would have the advantage of knowing the lowest cost among local carriers. For instance, if you are on Verizon and happen to be in some city on business, there is no way for you to access a lower-cost option than Verizon. Apple's MVNO could provide this option.
The consumer already controls their phone number. Once you have a phone number you can get it ported to whatever phone you own. It is the law, it may cost you a nominal fee to get the number transferred / ported over but you can keep the same phone number.
In theory. But anyone who'se tried to port their number more than once knows lots of shenanigans happen and I bet quite a few people are hesitant to switch carriers because of the hassle/fear of losing the number. I've even had to fight to keep my number within different plans from the same carrier. Yes, I got it ported but I had to huff and puff at the CS guy before he relented. I really don't understand why any carrier has a right to my number or why I have to request for them to port. My number should be mine. Perhaps a one time fee and that's it.
Comments
Google will have all their copies machine ready. 3 2 1....
You'll survive.
You'll survive.
Was that a joke I missed or just a put down?
Apple is just trying to control everything...just like Apple likes to do. Here is the down side as stated in the article "several European carriers threatened Apple that such a feature would jeopardize their willingness to subsidize future versions of the iPhone." You will save a few pennies on your phone bill but get ready to pay $500 - $700 for that new phone.
Way to take things out of context.
Here is the down side as stated in the article "several European carriers threatened Apple that such a feature would jeopardize their willingness to subsidize future versions of the iPhone."
The feature you seem to be talking about is something different. Apple wanted to work on an embedded SIM chip, which would do away with the requirement for customers to obtain a carrier-specific SIM. Not wanting to be even more marginalized, European carriers killed the project by threatening to cancel subsidies on the iPhone.
Apple is just trying to control everything...just like Apple likes to do.
I've heard this too many times to count. I'm willing to be money that if anyone besides Apple were to do this, that company would be lauded as watching out for customers, protecting them from those "big bad carriers." If Apple does it, however, they're just trying to control everything...but I digress.
Apple is maintaining control of the platform, and not allowing carriers to have any control of the platform. As I see it, that does not hinder carriers in any way. Their job is to provide the functionality of making calls and using the web. Carriers' lack of control does not hinder that at all. Also, it's a tradeoff system. For example, take the AT&T exclusivity deal. AT&T ceded control of the platform to Apple, but in exchange, AT&T did not have to handle any aspects related to handset itself, such as advertising and dealing with technical support/warranties. Apple handled all of those things, and at the same time, AT&T charged the same amount of money for monthly plans that it charged for other devices.
For this to happen, it would require co-operation from the carriers.
And because it could cause a sea change in the way they do business, I don't see them falling over themselves to offer this option.
If Apple creates an MVNO, then the carriers would have less to say about the issue. I had mentioned just the other day that Apple spending some of that cash heap to create an MVNO is a possibility. This looks like it could be a real likelihood. I would not be surprised to see Apple acquire an existing MVNO or two.
The carriers may not need to be that involved. If Apple has an MVNO in place they could probably route calls on the most cost-effective basis based on static information (i.e., using the least-cost option depending on where you are currently located). In time. Apple would need a way to poll this information from the carriers more dynamically.
The downside is that once Apple moves in this direction, carriers will understandably be unlikely to subsidize the iPhone. This might not be so bad in the US which has an abundance of retail outlets carrying the phone (plus possibly adding any acquired MVNO stores). But, it would signal to countless other carriers around the world what Apple's intentions are and cause them to either drop or stop subsidizing the iPhone.
Will be interesting to see if anything comes of this.
I think that under this model the subsidization (is that even a word!?) would come from Apple instead of the wireless provider(s). Or perhaps this would end subsidies all together and we'd end up with $300-$400 iPhones and lower monthly bills. I'd be okay with this path as long as the savings were realized in the first 6-12 months.
The carriers who don't have a knee-jerk reaction would still see the benefits of subsidizing the iPhone. That two-year contract the customer signs more than pays the cost of the phone and the carrier makes a tidy profit.
I have to wonder about the 'patent' here. SJ told us the iPhone and iOS was patented pretty well. If so, something went wrong there it seems to me, else Google are in for a nasty shock one day.
Don't forget that Apple has gone after a couple of Android carriers: HTC and Motorola (in a defensive maneuver).
Say this takes off. Who controls your phone #? We need to let end users have control of their phone numbers else it will be used as a wedge by carriers against competitive services.
In order for this to work, Apple most likely needs to become an MVNO - they will control your number.
Say this takes off. Who controls your phone #? We need to let end users have control of their phone numbers else it will be used as a wedge by carriers against competitive services.
You want my best guess ? Apple will (or anyone apple might license the patent to might provide the same service).
If this actually happens, it would commoditize the tower operators / license holders. Not a bad idea in my book.
Just to clear the air a little bit, some of what this portends is already happening.
Take AT&T (please !) ... I don't know how AT&T Wireless operates internally (financially speaking), but I'd bet that there are two operating segments. One operated the towers/licenses and one operates retail/consumer/biz accounts. The former is the one that wholesales minutes to all GSM retailers (MVNO, AT&T wireless retail, etc). The latter handles customer billing, dispenses handsets, and customer service. Guess which one would effectively get neutered by this kind of paradigm.
Next we'll see this for Android and hear some Droidette claim Google was planning to do this all along.
You mean like the way iPhone users originally dismissed copy/paste and multitasking on the iPhone?
You want my best guess ? Apple will (or anyone apple might license the patent to might provide the same service).
If this actually happens, it would commoditize the tower operators / license holders. Not a bad idea in my book.
No, if this happens it will drive up the retail price of the iPhone AND drive up the cost of airtime and data.
How many cell providers worldwide provide short term, low volume, ala carte services for LESS than long term bundled services? None. If you sign up for more minutes or more data, the cost per minute and cost per mb goes down. If you sign up for 2 years instead of month to month, the price goes down. If Apple gets their way and we buy by the minute without even a monthly contract you think it is going to be CHEAPER? Ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! I have a bridge to sell anyone who believes that!!!!!!!
And that is before we pay through the iTunes store. If there is a 30% Apple Tax to buy your minutes through Apple, you can be sure Apple owners will be charged 30% more by the carriers than people who get their airtime directly from the carrier.
There is no way this will increase competition, especially in the US. If I go to AT&T and Verizon now looking for a new iPhone on 2 year contract, whoever wins my business will get about $100 a month for 24 months, or $2400 in revenue, plus a big edge in getting me to resign for the next two years, plus the extra pull for my friends and familly from having me on their network. Under the Apple model, if I am asking them to bid on a 5 minute call to my cousin Fred at 3:00 PM, the winner will get something like $0.50 one time. There is a MUCH MUCH bigger incentive to compete now than there will be uner the Apple system.
Except that loans *END*. Why is it that after my cell contract is done my bill (which should be just for service at that point) does not go down?
-Mike
...umm, because you don't ask to change to a lower plan that may suit your needs better, once you are out of contract and your plan is rolling month to month.
Apple is just trying to control everything...just like Apple likes to do. Here is the down side as stated in the article "several European carriers threatened Apple that such a feature would jeopardize their willingness to subsidize future versions of the iPhone." You will save a few pennies on your phone bill but get ready to pay $500 - $700 for that new phone.
Well this is a no-brainer and you can't criticize Apple or any company on this topic.
Of course if you are getting the lowest price on calls no carrier will subsidize your phone and no company will give you a free phone. You can't have both low cost per call and a subsidized phone.
In this model you would have to pay full cost for the phone to get the lower call rates. Over the life of the phone this method would save consumers money. All companies exist to make money, to think you should be able get both low call rates and a subsidized phone you would have to be a moron.
This whole idea goes along the lines of the old saying: You can pay me now or you can pay me later. Rest assured nothing in this world is free and you will pay or you will go without. The only choice you will ever have is deciding which method of payment works best for you.
Say this takes off. Who controls your phone #? We need to let end users have control of their phone numbers else it will be used as a wedge by carriers against competitive services.
The consumer already controls their phone number. Once you have a phone number you can get it ported to whatever phone you own. It is the law, it may cost you a nominal fee to get the number transferred / ported over but you can keep the same phone number.
No, if this happens it will drive up the retail price of the iPhone AND drive up the cost of airtime and data.
How many cell providers worldwide provide short term, low volume, ala carte services for LESS than long term bundled services? None. If you sign up for more minutes or more data, the cost per minute and cost per mb goes down. If you sign up for 2 years instead of month to month, the price goes down. If Apple gets their way and we buy by the minute without even a monthly contract you think it is going to be CHEAPER? Ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! I have a bridge to sell anyone who believes that!!!!!!!
You are kind of missing the whole issue of Apple becoming an MVNO (like Virgin, Boost, Tracfone). These companies buy huge blocks of minutes from the Verizon and Sprint at a discount and then resell them at a profit but below the telcos prices. Apple could do the same even offering to subsidize the iPhone for a two-year contract. Apple could easily enter this field by buying up a few MVNOs.
What would be new is the concept of least-cost routing. But even that is old news as that was a standard offering for companies that specialized in the business long-distance market before nationwide long-distance was available. Apple could take advantage of this by offering a fixed dollar value (rather than minutes) for your subscription and then always route through the lowest-cost alternative. Any usage above the allotted dollar plan would likely see additional minutes at substantially lower prices billed to your iTunes account.
I don't think this will necessarily be about ala carte services. I think Apple will be an MVNO that offers least-cost routing.
This will never happen because it would require the networks cooperation. Whos to say that apple knows better than you, what the cheapest rate is? This wouldn't take into consideration all the permutations with phone plans that take place. These companies could bid one price to apple and then advertise, hey if you get the plan from us it'll be cheaper. Telcos depend on steady cash flow like any other business and would never willingly go to a on demand bid model, it would completely remove any leverage they have with pricing plans.
Apple would have the advantage of knowing the lowest cost among local carriers. For instance, if you are on Verizon and happen to be in some city on business, there is no way for you to access a lower-cost option than Verizon. Apple's MVNO could provide this option.
i would love to see the carriers put in this position but it might as well be the "Wishful Thinking" or the "If Wishes Were Carriers" patent
The consumer already controls their phone number. Once you have a phone number you can get it ported to whatever phone you own. It is the law, it may cost you a nominal fee to get the number transferred / ported over but you can keep the same phone number.
In theory. But anyone who'se tried to port their number more than once knows lots of shenanigans happen and I bet quite a few people are hesitant to switch carriers because of the hassle/fear of losing the number. I've even had to fight to keep my number within different plans from the same carrier. Yes, I got it ported but I had to huff and puff at the CS guy before he relented. I really don't understand why any carrier has a right to my number or why I have to request for them to port. My number should be mine. Perhaps a one time fee and that's it.